672 



tiniial migration to the California coast, the Florida coast, the South 

 Carolina coast. A lot oi people are even leavino; Alaska and going 

 down to live in Seattle, and I sort of think our climate in Alaska is 

 better than theirs down there but, as a practical matter, more and 

 more people are moving to the coastal zone. AVe are trying to find a 

 way to prevent the incentives to move into that zone, and to assist the 

 States in meeting the impact on that zone from the facilities that are 

 necessary to meet our energy problem. 



I do not think this is stretching it to say that we should recognize 

 that unless we talve care of the coastal zone we are going to destroy 

 the resources of that coastal zone. This was the basic motivation that 

 led the Committee on Commerce to recommend the act. It was the 

 problem of the oceans that led the Committee on Commerce to demand 

 planning for the protection of the coastal zone. Now we are saying 

 that anything that would impact that coastal zone ought to be planned 

 for and you ought to get assistance in financing the impact in that 

 area. 



Again, maybe we are going slowly, more slowly than the Senator 

 from Arkansas would like, and we would — I do not know whether I 

 speak for the chairman of the com.mittee and the subcommittee, but I 

 would — support legislation to assist onshore States with their prob- 

 lems of energy siting and energy impact, the impact from energy de- 

 velopment, but that is not this bill. The amendment of the Senator 

 from Arkansas limits this bill only to oil and gas production which, 

 I tliink, is wrong. 



The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ford) . Who yields time ? 



Mr. Holdings. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arkansas 

 is not persuaded, but he tries in this particular amendment to amend 

 section 808. What he has not done and what is not being done is to 

 amend the original act. 



His concept of it is that this was an offshore drilling act when it was 

 originally passed, and limited only to that. 



Now, the Senator from Arkansas is marlving up a little amendment 

 over there, but I can tell the Senator— I tliink by now, I can tell my 

 distinguished friend, that they moved that proposed New Jersey 

 powerplant offshore right within the 3-mile zone. At the particular 

 time we had hearings, some 4 yeare ago, when this wos even beyond 

 the o-mile area. So now Vv^e w'ere talking of those facilities sited out 

 in the waters that would have an impact upon the coastal zone area. 



But I can see that I could well be wasting the time of the Senate. If 

 there are any questions I vrould be glad to try to explain them. This 

 is not coastal State legislation, it is coastal zone legislation ; 90 percent 

 of the State of Virginia, 90 percent of the State of Georgia, 90 percent 

 of the State of South Carolina and 90 percent of the State of Georgia, 

 as tlie distinguished Senator from Georgia knows, are not included 

 because they have not agreed to submit to an overall plan. But there 

 is real concern about national zoning. 



If we are going to have anything we are going to have to come to 

 Washington and, as a result, propose land use, wJiich nationally has 

 not passed. But it is the idea now of the Senator from Arkansas, talk- 

 ing about the regional commissions and everything else, to say : "No, 

 you do not have this particular problem until you spread it to Arkan- 

 sas, and it is really just a dealing oat of money." 



